Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Commodore]

I can think of a couple exceptions to this. There would still be for example a limited amount of space at {place X}. If you want to go to Machu Picchu on vacation, how will you pay for it? Not everyone can go - there is only so much space available per day. Isn't that scarcity, implying that you will need to exchange something of value in order to book your spot?

Also, what about services? Those are scarce, limited by the number of people who are able to perform the task and are willing to do so.

Queues. Basically those things would operate on a first-come-first-serve basis. You want to go on a vacation somewhere? If there is space available then you go immediately, if not you get put on a waiting list and go when there is space available. Since you won't have to work in this future, it's not like you would have a job to worry about so waiting wouldn't exactly be a problem unless you are just an impatient person.

 

[Lexicus]

I think what you're describing - the system continuing even when its effectiveness seems increasingly farcical - is more or less what's happening now.

Big time. That's a fairly straightforward rehash of Marx, who argued that capitalist relations led to a state of society in which capitalist relations themselves became obsolete. And I think you're quite right, this is already happening in our time. For-profit production is becoming increasingly burdensome, and may actually lead to the destruction of civilization.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What we're talking about though, whether through replicators, automation, or a fully computerized/algorithm-derived command economy would be one in which none of those challenges exist. With no scarcity there's no need for money - everybody gets what they want, when they want immediately. With a perfectly functioning command economy there's no demand - needs are identified and met before they arise. In either case money is unnecessary, and there's (theoretically) no corruption or inefficiencies muddying up the system.

Uh-huh... and if I ask this magic replicator for a set of tapestry needles, acrylic yarn in my color choices, canvas, tape, scissors, needlenose pliers, and everything else I'd need to create a unique craft project, that would mean there's only one of the resulting project in the world. What if someone else wants it? Do I just hand it over? Were the machines monitoring my every movement while I created the object, so they can mass-produce it for everyone?

What a way to stifle human creativity.

Just because something exists today, and has existed for a long time, doesn't mean it has to necessarily exist. People once thought Kings were an intrinsic, inseparable part of a stable, functioning government and we've got by just fine for the last 3 centuries without one.

Maybe your country has. My country will have a King in just a few years, unless the Queen decides to be as long-lived as her mother.

I can think of a couple exceptions to this. There would still be for example a limited amount of space at {place X}. If you want to go to Machu Picchu on vacation, how will you pay for it? Not everyone can go - there is only so much space available per day. Isn't that scarcity, implying that you will need to exchange something of value in order to book your spot?

Also, what about services? Those are scarce, limited by the number of people who are able to perform the task and are willing to do so.

With holodecks, people could go to Machu Picchu any time they wanted, and likely wouldn't care that much that it wasn't the real thing. The real fear I'd have would be if our hypothetical machine rulers would even see any point in allowing such a site to continue to exist. What do machines care about ancient history and archaeology?

 

[Lexicus]

Uh-huh... and if I ask this magic replicator for a set of tapestry needles, acrylic yarn in my color choices, canvas, tape, scissors, needlenose pliers, and everything else I'd need to create a unique craft project, that would mean there's only one of the resulting project in the world. What if someone else wants it? Do I just hand it over? Were the machines monitoring my every movement while I created the object, so they can mass-produce it for everyone?

Would these questions have any real meaning in a post-scarcity world where all needs are met without any human labor?

Maybe your country has. My country will have a King in just a few years, unless the Queen decides to be as long-lived as her mother.

Sure, but the example of our country (among others) proves that you can govern without monarchs - even though there was certainly a political theory that monarchy was basically inevitable and necessary for society to function.

Without money what would we replace fines and civil payments with? Would payments be made in kind? If so, would every payment have to specified in detail? That would get tiresome. It would sure save time if we had a thing we could use to reckon the value of everything else...and voila, you have money.
Money is just the quantification of social obligations. I think that Valka is correct and you can't have an economy or society where strangers regularly interact without any kind of quantified debt obligation, just for the sake of consistency in law and custom.
I think we're conditioned to think of money as a thing that fulfills a strictly economic function, when it's in reality much broader than that.